Elder Patriot – Arizona Senator John McCain has long advocated for expanding the surveillance and propaganda programs of America’s intelligence agencies under the guise of protecting the country.
Marco Rubio is a disciple of McCain’s strident demand for control over ever increasing amounts of the personal information of every American citizen. He also comes down on the side of McCain over controlling the message the media disseminates on issues he deems important to the state.
In 2015, Rubio argued for an extension of the National Security Agency’s phone metadata program. Writing an op-ed for USA Today Rubio claimed, “The government is not listening to your phone calls or recording them unless you are a terrorist or talking to a terrorist outside the United States. There is not a single documented case of abuse of this program.”
As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee he knew better yet he lied to us. Just as he lied to Martha Raddatz on Sunday when he told her he’s seen “no evidence” to support President Trump’s claims that the FBI used an informant to gather information on his campaign. We’ll see how that plays out.
In 2017, Rubio voted to expand government control over the media when he cast a YEA vote for legislation authorizing the establishment of a ministry of truth. If you think I’m exaggerating take a look back at the text of Senate bill S.2943 that was sponsored by, are you ready, John McCain.
What follows is only small portion of the authorizations provided for and fund by the bill.
Sec. 1287.Global Engagement Center
(1) In general –
Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Defense and the heads of other relevant Federal departments and agencies, shall establish within the Department of State a Global Engagement Center (in this section referred to as the “Center”).
(2) Purpose –
The purpose of the Center shall be to lead, synchronize, and coordinate efforts of the Federal Government to recognize, understand, expose, and counter foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining United States national security interests.
You can read more of the pertinent text here. While you’re doing so consider how it applies with what we have learned about Deep State surveillance of Americans, Facebook’s role in collecting all of your personal data whether your are a user or not, as well as Facebook choosing what news it will allow its users to view.
Here’s our complete report on that bill from December 13, 2016 that was passed during a lame duck session of Congress.
Rubio darn well knows what’s included in these bills but chose to sign them anyway. It would seem that Rubio has earned the nickname Police State Marco.
Two months ago, Senator Rubio sponsored S.2607, the Extreme Risk Protection Order and Violence Prevention Act of 2018. Sounds important but like the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that we discussed above, it’s just another way for the government to circumvent your Second Amendment Rights.
In fairness to Senator Rubio, attempting to obtain court-ordered removal of guns from a person deemed dangerous to others or to him or herself is difficult to define and put to paper. Perhaps that’s why all the wise men that preceded him during our nation’s two plus centuries, intent on adhering to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, have never attempted it.
The troublesome text appears in “SEC. 3042. EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER LEGISLATION:
(3) TEMPORARY EX PARTE EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDER.—
“(A) IN GENERAL.—Upon receipt of a petition under paragraph (1), the court may issue a temporary ex parte extreme risk protection order before conducting the hearing required under paragraph (2), if—
“(i) a request for a temporary ex parte extreme risk protection order is included in the petition and includes detailed allegations based on personal knowledge that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving, a firearm or ammunition; and
“(ii) the court finds there is probable cause to believe that the respondent poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others in the near future by having in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving, a firearm or ammunition.
Ex parte means the accused is not to be present. While extreme and immediate threats do indeed exist at times this law provides judges with broad and subjective powers over the Constitutional rights of innocent citizens, at the time they render their decision to order the confiscation of their guns and ammunition.
A more narrowly tailored wording restricting the threshold to the accused’s social media posts, or corroboration by multiple unassociated complainants, would better protect the Constitutional rights of the accused.
Would we consider a law this vaguely worded if any other of an accused rights were violated in this manner?
The bill continues on to order the procedure for the accused to have his rights restored.
4) TERMINATION AND EXTENSION OF EXTREME RISK PROTECTION ORDERS.—
“(A) HEARING TO VACATE ORDER.—
“(i) IN GENERAL.—A respondent may request not less than 1 hearing to vacate an extreme risk protection order issued against the respondent.
“(ii) HEARING.—Not later than 30 days after the date on which a petitioner is notified of the request of the respondent to vacate an extreme risk protection order, the court shall conduct a hearing on the request.
“(I) IN GENERAL.—The court shall vacate an extreme risk protection order if the respondent demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent does not pose a significant danger of causing personal injury to himself or herself or others by having in his or her custody or control, or by purchasing, possessing, or receiving, a firearm or ammunition.
The law allows, on the say so of an irate girlfriend, for example, for a sympathetic judge (anti-Second Amendment) to leave the order in place for as many as thirty days before ruling on the merits of the case and then arbitrarily deciding to keep the order in place for the entire twelve months as provided for by the statute.
I can think of no other law that strips an American citizen of their Constitutional rights for any period of time once they’re accused, and certainly not on the word of what may be an adversary.
Rubio never seems troubled by trampling on the Constitutional protections of American citizens if, in his view, the end result is increased State control.
It’s clear Senator Rubio is has positioned himself to receive the torch from Senator McCain, who has been a leading voice for growing the surveillance state at the expense of our personal liberties, when McCain departs the Senate for the last time.